pawntificator: Amusingly, I just read an old article by C.J.S. Purdy on this game. In it he states that Alekhine mistakenly claimed a draw. So that answers the question I asked 11 years ago on this page.

poslednieje: For the sake of history move 26 Bf3! was extensively analysed in a paper on monday 28 february 1966 PZC. Dutch IM
C.B. v.d. Berg published the analysis from a kibitzer J.J.M.Gommers. The same analysis is given by Kasparov in his book nr. 1 "From Steinitz to Alekhine" Ed. 2003
BBK 75.581 Russian edition.

thomastonk: <poslednieje> Interesting remark! In the English edition of Kasparov's book there is no analysis of 26.♗f3, but 27.♗f3 is analysed. So, I assume this was only a typo.

The first part of the analysis of 27.♗f3 there is a quote of Alekhine's faulty analysis. The second part is the correction thereof, but nothing special, if one assumes that Kasparov and his collaborator applied an engine check.

Is the Russian edition more extensive? And, please, what does PZC mean? Thank you!

thomastonk: <sneaky pete> I knew that the Netherlands are a very nice country, but obviously it is the paradise for online newspaper research, when even Zeeland has its own <searchable> krantenbank! Thank you for this link.

Dave12: 26..Re3, Rook can't be taken (Qxg3+). 28..Nc3, N is protected. 30..Nxe2, N is protected. 31..Ne4, the Rook can't be taken (Nxd2 and then Nxc1, or Nxf3). 32..Nxf2, protects the B. 33..Be6, kicking the R back to the b file, not to win the N- because 34..Ng4+, and here comes the use of the Rook on a1, white must play Kh3. 36..Rxf3, the R can't be taken (Nxf3+). 40..Nxd4, winning... the N on b7!!! calculating all this is a miracle

A.T PhoneHome: Haha, only now I realized how Alekhine wins here. I've had a brief look at this game every now and then; until now, I hadn't even considered the fact both White Knight and Bishop are on the same diagonal.

Howard: First, this issue may have already been addressed on this website, but I'm not gonna wade through 12 pages of commentary to find out---so I apologize if this is redundant.

Back in April, 2003, someone posted a comment that according to Alekhine's book, the position did not occur three times. As I've read before, this is an example of how Alekhine was known to "fudge" several of the game scores in his books so as to boost his reputation.

In other words, Alekhine apparently omitted a pair of moves, so as to disguise the fact that Reti could have made a certain move and thus claimed a draw. Alekhine considered this game one of the two best ones he ever played..

...and he didn't want it to be known that Reti had had the opportunity to abruptly end the game around the 20th move !

At this point the arbiter stepped in and corrected Alekhine. "The position has only been repeated twice and the game must continue," the arbiter (TD) told The World Champion somewhat fearfully. (Alekhine's temper was already quite well known!). >

This game was played in 1925, at which time Capablanca was World Champion!

NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply.
Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous,
and 100% free--plus, it
entitles you to features otherwise unavailable.
Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should
login now.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.

No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.

No personal attacks against other members.

Nothing in violation of United States law.

No posting personal information of members.

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.

NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page.
This forum is for this specific game and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or
this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages
posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.